Main Menu        Directory        Calc        ATMs        Login        Sign Up
 
Apr. 13, 2019
Why The Name "Bitcoin" Belongs to Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Cash supporters have heard the term "BCash" spouted from Bitcoin BTC supporters endlessly since August 1, 2017, the date Bitcoin Cash forked from the BTC blockchain. Most exchanges and all BCH supporters use the proper name "Bitcoin Cash" to describe the community. Why, then, do Core supporters refuse to accept that naming? Do they think the word "Bitcoin" somehow infringes on their rights or property? Actually they do, but this article aims to put an end to that misguided notion. The case will be made showing why the Bitcoin label actually belongs to the Bitcoin Cash community.



Anyone reading a tweet from Luke-Jr is treated to a Bitcoin parody of the famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper. Luke seems to be saying, "hey, someone recognized me as someone of such importance to Bitcoin I'm portrayed in an artistic work!" This is so typical of Core adherents. They gladly bask in the love and glory associated with the name "Bitcoin", even re-tweet images raising Satoshi to god-like status (since "Satoshi" takes the place of Jesus in the parody), but at the same time they fight tooth and nail against the very design Satoshi made!

Satoshi is well known to be a "big blocker",  someone believing tons of transactions should be recorded on the blockchain. The white paper he authored does not have a limit on the size of blocks.

That's two points against Core for the argument about what Bitcoin is meant to be: the creator himself, and his official white paper both specify large volume blocks.

Some might argue, well, Satoshi was brilliant, but he was still a human and humans make mistakes. Perhaps he got that part of Bitcoin wrong! Indeed, Core supporters obviously feel this is what happened, but there is a problem there. The problem is Satoshi wasn't alone in his view. An Ivy League school educated computer-science major named Gavin Andresen was one of the first programmers to get involved with the project, alongside Satoshi, and he agreed with the big-block view. Another programmer, an engineer at Google, Mike Hearn, also became involved around that time and he too believed in big blocks. So as the project moved from an idea to a real world thing it was backed up by highly intelligent people other than Satoshi. As the community continued growing this big-block view was the only one adopted and expected by most if not all the community. Greg Maxwell, arguably the leader of "small blockers", didn't come onto the scene until later (because he had already "proved" Bitcoin couldn't work, apparently).

So that's three strikes against Core! That's Satoshi, his official paper, and backing from Satoshi's peers for his original design.

With so much factual history on the side of big blocks, how can Core supporters possibly think they control, nay have ownership rights to, what is truly "Bitcoin"? Is it because the BTC blockchain continues to have a 1MB cap? Yes, it's that and careful use of mental gymnastics.


Core will argue, well "we won" because the BTC blockchain is on a path in line with our view. So we are Bitcoin. But that's not right. It's true Core controls the BTC blockchain, and that the blockchain continues to have a 1MB cap, but neither of these things is because Core won any argument.

The 1MB cap was never meant to be a permanent fixture. It was instituted very early on, when transactions were essentially free, to prevent uncontrollable spam flooding before the network could handle it.

Core never convinced a super-majority, and probably not even a majority, of the community to adopt their view.

Core fans might quickly point to the hash war in 2017, which resulted in Bitcoin Cash forking off because miners wouldn't vote to raise the block size, forcing a contentious hard-fork. This is the last argument Core could possibly hope for as justification for claiming owning all rights to Bitcoin, but this too is not in their favor.

It's true miners didn't hard-fork the BTC chain to larger blocks, but not because they agreed with Core. We know this because there was an actual poll taken showing the vast majority of miners wanted a plan that increased block size. The most popular plan was from Adam Back, calling for a schedule of 2-4-8MB increases spaced 2 years apart:



So why didn't miners force through a hard-fork? Miners didn't do it because they did what any rational profit seeking business would do: they took the path least likely to damage their profits. The network with 1MB was known, and known to be profitable. A change, and one fiercely resisted even if only by a handful of people, therefore, was deemed more risky. Besides, there was talk of a fork happening anyway, one where people desiring larger blocks could do what they wanted.

And that's how Core, and their vision, ended up in control of the BTC blockchain. It was a mixture of a fluke (the temporary spam cap) along with conservative business logic, nothing more. Yet from this alone Core adherents feel justified in claiming they own and are protecting "Bitcoin". Nothing could be more against historical facts!

As shown, the true Bitcoin is the network that accepts giant sized blocks. If the BTC blockchain isn't that, then it simply means it's a BTC blockchain only, because Bitcoin either doesn't exist, or has moved somewhere else.

Bitcoin has moved somewhere else. People can learn more at BitcoinCash.org.



Upvote this

Tip the author

suggest site   |   about   |   contact   |   terms   |   news

©2019 Coinster